To think the whole point of a Will is to leave your money to whoever you want

[wineoclockthanks]

But apparently that's not the case...

My Elderly Aunt is rewriting her Will and wants to leave everything to her DD2 and nothing to her eldest daughter who she hasn't been in contact with for nearly 30 years (not sure why, it's never discussed!).

I took her to a Solicitor who basically said she would strongly advise against leaving her D1 out because if the daughter contested it, it's highly likely she would win and the costs of such a case would come out of the Estate. She quoted a case where a daughter had been estranged for 42 years but contested and won a share of her late mother's estate.

My Aunt is really upset, it's not a huge amount of money, but she wanted it all to go to the daughter who has been there for her and basically looked after her for the past 20-odd years.

AIBU to be shocked by this?

In Scotland you can not disinherit a child. I agree with that.

I can't speak for Scotland but that's not great advice in England and Wales. The case she's talking about is really, really specific and most people don't seem to think it will have much influence more widely. We still have testamentary freedom.

Is this solicitor a specialist private client lawyer? I would try another one.

Or in France cleaty

Although in England, unless the DD1 has been lead to believe she would inherit, I don't know why the solicitor would be giving that advice. I'm no expert but know of several cases where children have received nothing, usually because the money was left to charity.

In the recent case where the disinherited daughter won, the daughter had run the family farm for decades in the expectation that she would inherit, then the parents left it to charity .

Maybe the solicitor is thinking about the impact if the estranged DD and her DM reconciled and the DM didn't get round to changing the will again.

I'm not sure whether the two DDs are in contact- if so, it could have a negative effect on their relationship.

I see what you mean, but I know many families where there has been a lot of bad feeling after a death due to treating DCs unequally in wills. That ripple of bad feeling/jealousy/hurt can linger long after the deceased person is gone.

It's made me think carefully about my own will as well as who is nominated to care for our DCs if something should happen to us, I really want to avoid any perception of inequality or favouritism.

That's very interesting, the Sol was so sure, maybe it's worth getting a second opinion.

This is quite useful if you can face reading up on it, but also relevant was the fact that the daughter was chucked out uncerimiously while under 18 for choosing a husband her mother didn't like and had never really managed to make anything of her life since. www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/ilott-v-mitson-how-will-it-affect-future-claims-on-wills/

Yes to a second opinion.

There will be an issue if DD1 was told "you'll get this" and then worked on the farm/cared for her mother etc (you need both- the promise and the reliance to the DD's detriment). But given the lack of contact here that seems impossible.

The new case was broader because established position was that adult non-disabled children in absence of estoppel claim could naff the naff off, and this latest case does upset that a bit. BUT only on really specific facts. The fact that your aunt would be leaving to her other DD not a charity is relevant as is the fact that DD1 presumably wasn't still legally a child when they fell out.

Does it make your will more watertight if in the case above you left the DD1 a small legacy and the DD2 a much larger one and specified that this was to reflect the time the DD2 had spent caring for her in her old age?

Can she start funneling the money to DD2 bit by bit, so when she's dies there's not much to split?

There was a case where a mother's will was overturned but one of the grounds was that the daughter's father had died before she was born and some of the mother's estate was deemed to me from him

Be not me.

In the states, it's not unheard of to leave the disinherited a single dollar, or some other very small token sum, to make it clear you want them to get nothing, and you're not "accidentally" leaving them out.

If I were you Op I'd get another solicitor. In England and Wales it is fine to leave a child out of your will. There are one or two cases where a will has been overturned but as previous posters have said, they were very specific circumstances.

I think the two daughters should inherit equally. Who knows what the other daughter suffered. But I am Scottish.

As RandomMess and HeyOverHere have said, it can be problematic to completely leave someone out.
ive recently been in a situation where a relative's will was contested by someone deliberately missed off. It was really horrible for everyone (and I wasn't down to inherit anything so it's not that I feel cheated!!).
Essentially if you completely ignore someone who would traditionally be expected to inherit - in my case a husband, though an estranged one - they can argue it was an oversight. If they've been dependent financially on the deceased they have a stronger case too.
They would be better off leaving them a nominal sum and if possible stating something along the lines of 'and nothing else'!! That's the advice my family's solicitor gave anyway - albeit a bit too late! X

If I recall correctly, the children's rights under Scottish Law are limited and may in fact only refer to a share of the moveable estate. (Where there is a valid will.) I'd get a second opinion in any case.

My personal view is it's right that you can write who you like in or out. No one "should" inherit anything. If you do it's a bonus. I have to deal with people who all day who live their whole lives in the expectation of an inheritance and I secretly hope their parents spend the lot.

cozie I just looked it up and yes that seems to be the position. So you wouldn't get any of the house etc. France etc much more significant in the forced heirship stakes.

I don't think its a bad thing that the solicitor wanted to be sure that your Aunt definitely wanted to leave nothing to her estranged DD. Surely if that was included in the notes accompanying the paperwork involved in making the will, it would make the case for carrying out your Aunts wishes more watertight in the possible event that the will was contested. I think it makes perfect sense and especially when an elderly person is making a will the solicitor would want to be sure that they have the capacity to make the decision themselves. I'm no expert though, this is just from experience in dealing with these matters through relatives.

I did read somewhere MN that it's better to leave a nominal amount rather than leave them out completely. I think it's because it shows that you've considered the bequest specifically and given them an amount you deem appropriate rather than omitting it offhand/out of spite.

I'm no lawyer though. There's a will writer on here who gives solid advice, but I can't remember her name for the life of me.

Marlow wills- run by a Mumsnetter

Mumblechum?

My grandad left everything to one daughter and left out 2 daughters.. My mum contested and got a portion of his estate. It wasn't as simple as her just being his child though, she had to put forward reasons she should be awarded it.

Some old people are just bastards and easily influenced.

You might be right, I thought of that username and went, " Nah, she's the GP".